(in correspondence with chapter two of New Media in Late 20th Century Art by Michael Rush)
one.
The author discusses the fine line between 'Art' and 'artful' that one must consider when viewing works of video art; where 'Art' revolves around the intention behind the the artists work and 'artful' emphasizes the appealing aesthetic present in informational outlets. Are these definitions of 'Art' and 'artful' applicable solely to video art, or can they be considered universally?
two.
In the late 1960s, we begin to see a transition where video art is being glorified by methods of commercialism (EG: WGBH's televised broadcast and funding of The Medium is the Medium). Meanwhile, non-profit organizations that promoted the development of relationships between the arts and sciences by means of collaboration, such as the Experiments in Art and Technology (E.A.T.), were beginning to fall as artists and the public criticized them of commercializing the produced work. When viewed from the surface, how is it that the artists contributing to WGBH were rewarded and E.A.T. was critiqued for turning to commercialism as a method of exploiting their work?
No comments:
Post a Comment